make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Easley unhappy with Bush veto on child health insurance plan

RALEIGH (AP) -- Gov. Mike Easley wants help from lawmakers with a veto -- this time one from President Bush on a bill that would have expanded children's health insurance dramatically. Bush rejected the bill because he said it was too costly and expanded the federal-state program beyond its original intent of helping children in low-income families. Easley says "there is no excuse" for any member of the North Carolina congressional delegation not to support an override. Bill supporters are about two dozen votes short of an override in the House. President Bush has said he is ready to negotiate with lawmakers on a compromise. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.


Welcome to real life

Once again....we are all reaching the same end, some sooner than others. Some, far too soon. Re-read my post, and tell me what exactly is so cold - the fact that I wouldn't keep a child lingering at death's door once it became obvious there was no hope? The alternative sounds pretty selfish to me.

subsidizing a lifestyle

Most families in need of health insurance would love to be making 60k a year or more. So apparently from this statement you are in favor of sterilization? "If we return to offering funded abortions to the poor with the stipulation of a mandatory tubal ligation during the second abortion," I guess it's the woman's fault she is pregnant so the man responsible would not need to be sterilized as well? So I guess from this statement not only are you for sterilization, but you only hold women responsible. I imagine many women's groups would want to have words with you. Would you support a measure for health care coverage for people making less than the poverty level? Probably not, I imagine. Apparently you need to be living in China where people have limits on children no matter what they make or they own. "Forced sterilization"? I wonder if that's how the Jewish community felt about it when Hitler proposed it? Oh that's right, he was a madman wasn't he?

Good luck identifying the father

I deal in practical fiscal policy, not emotions. So nice try with the gender angle, but since MEN won't be coming in to get the abortions, we'd have no opportunity to sterilize them, would we? But on the back-side of that equation, I fully support cracking down on deadbeat fathers. I'm all in favor of their not being allowed to give up a job unless they had one already waiting. I also support their having to obtain court permission to leave their state of residence, and having ALL child support collected through wage garnishment. I can even live with indentured servitude if a father failed to meet his financial obligations and the taxpayers had to start taking care of his offspring. The government needs to get out of the Nanny business. We need to hold people accountable and responsible for their own life's management or mismanagement, and stop delivering financial bonuses for crappy life-planning.

Easily unhappy

Poor Mike! He's been wrong as well as unhappy before! What's new?